About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi? and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation? is outrageous. >> sean: i hope you were paying very close attention there. because as usual when the teleprompters are not scrolling, the truth magically comes out. what you heard from the president for the first time, he admitted that rice was sent on the sunday shows, quote, at the request of the white house. now, if that is in fact the case and if susan rice was following marching orders from the president himself, well, that means she went into battle armed with white house talking points. and what do those talking points say? it appears they told her to ignore the intelligence committee because they knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind this strike. instead of telling the truth, she repeatedly blamed the death of a u.s. ambassador and three other americans on this, quote, youtube video. why? because that's what she was told to do. she was follow
but this is someone who has served the u.n. very well. she worked on the security council to bring these crippling sanctions on iran. she has a long resume. she has full confidence. >> sean: you know hillary clinton you are friends with the clintons. she does not have the resume, she is no hillary clinton. >> she is not hillary clinton but she brings a different skill set. hillary clinton, i adore and fill that role as secretary and traveled the world and been a diplomat. it's a different role but not to say susan rice is not qualified. >> she is so passive. i spoke to high level folks that have worked in the united nations and they all said the same thing. she is very passive when it comes to the united nations. when you look at iran she was part of that out stretched hand to basically suspend sanctions to iran. last time they brought up a resolution against iran, it was back in june 2010 -- this is not the person you want leading the department of state. we've got, for example, they joined the human rights council, she was an internal advocate for that. that is one china has been on, libya has b
. and it contradicts u.n. ambassador susan rice, who five days after the attack made the rounds on all five sunday talk shows. remember, she was pushing the position that violence was in reaction to a youtube video. what make this is scandal potentially historic in its reach and effect is the role of the president in all of this. now every day, as more evidence comes out, it is becoming more special more clear that barack obama had to know that there was mounting evidence that al qaeda was involve in this attack and that the anti-islamic video had nothing to do with the murder of ambassador stevens and three others, long before obama continued to point blame at the 13-minute youtube video. think about it this way f. obama's cia director knew almost instantaneously that an al qaeda-affiliated group was responsible for the attack and the station chief in libya reported to washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants. and if email shows that the officials at the white house and state department were advised two hours after the attack that an islamic militant g
that the sanctions that the u.n. hats imposed on iran and the united states and obama administration touts so often. they have had no impact at all on the iranian nuclear program. that is the head of the agency. we're really in a position of diminished power and diminished ability to influence the outcome of events. >> here is what i am confused. i remember hearing that democratic nations are peaceful, hamas democratically elected in 2006, morsi government was just elected and they become more anti-american, more dangerous to israel, more anti-western. what went wrong with our understanding of democracy here? >> i think it was much too limited. democracy is a culture. it's a way of life. it's not just simply holding an election and counting votes. it takes a long time to get it in place. it's no knock on any particular region or religion to say that. people have recognized it as far back as jon stewart, in europe they didn't cover themselves in glory in the last century. in russia having passed out of authoritarianism may be going back into it. so the fact that a group can gel elected in the and th
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)